ah, true. being killed against my will is bad. but of course i play worse odds every time i head to sprawlmart in my truck. i just dont think, statistically, i,m anywhere near that kind of risk for being shot. now, being the victim of SOME KIND of violent crime, well thats a greater risk. is it not reasonable to keep a multipurpose tool that can be used to defend myself should the need arise?

i reduce my odds of death while driving by driving relatively safely and wearing my seatbelt. My car is NOT a necessity, i could walk, take the bus, or fly wherever i need to go. The very fact that i drive puts other peoples lives at risk. i try to be safe, but still tale that risk in the name of convenience.

i also keep my guns stored and used in a safe manner. that makes them probably less risky than my truck. When i bring home a deer, or elk, or chukar killed with my guns, they directly cntribute to my health and welfare, and that of my family. its a risk im willing to take. thats my personal responsibility.

and i,ll probably die of cancer or heart attack at the end.

please dont get workd up over the car comparison.

and the best technology was canon, and explosives. you could still kill people with the single shot blackpowder musket today.

i try to be safe, but still tale that risk in the name of convenience.

You are required by law to use your vehicle safely, have regular safety inspections, and pass a periodic test to prove you can operate it safely. We pay LEO's to patrol the streets to make sure you have done all of that.

i also keep my guns stored and used in a safe manner.

As you are required to by law (in most places). However, there are no safety inspections and no periodic tests to prove you can operate them safely. The only explanation I can find for people opposing such inspections and/or tests is a wild fantasy about the government keeping tabs on them as part of a vast governmental conspiracy to take over.

you could still kill people with the single shot blackpowder musket today.

But you couldn't walk into a school, shopping mall, movie theater, etc and kill dozens of them in minutes.

Im not req,d to have a safe. i,m not req,d to unload them. Im not req,d to send my kid to hunter safety or teach her safe handling or to GTFO if someone else messes w a gun. But that will all get done, or is currently being done. it seems common sense to me.

as to the car thing, well you just have to be of legal age for ownership. driving then requires all the certification.

quite frankly, there are plenty of incapable folks out there who should do neither.

this is just the bored-at-work pissing contest. blackpowder,s more dangerous than smokeless, and if you had any reasonable quantity it would be easy enough to leave the musket at home, if death and destruction were your goal.

Tell us Jebz, what is your role in all of this? Do you just like to pop in every once in a while and tell everyone how useless it is to discuss the topic at hand? You do realize that is far more useless to point that out, right? But not quite as useless as me point out how useless you pointing it out is... which is a-whole-nother level of uselessness.

hillrat, maybe not be required in NV, but definitely required in other places.

Under the Children’s Firearm Accident Preven
tion Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded
firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses
it, may be fined or sent to prison. (Penal Code
§§ 12035, 12036, 12071.)

if you had any reasonable quantity it would be easy enough to leave the musket at home, if death and destruction were your goal.

You think it is just as easy to blow a place with black powder than it is to walk in with a few guns and start blasting away? I haven't given it much thought, but the former seems a bit more involved... which I assume is why it doesn't happen as much.

i would think ynu,re right. crazy people like scary guns. plain as day. they tend not to get terribly sophisticated, or we,d have more oklahoma city,s. i,d venture that we,re also lucky so many of them off themselves early on.

i see that child protection act. it still doesnt define what a safe manner would be.

we still sell 200mph cars, with no roads to drive them on, simply entrusting that owners obey the law. leo,s dont write tickets for owning the car, just for breaking the laws. i can imagine a future in which you need a gun license, but it saddens me to think as a society we could become so irresponsible. no part of the registration costs for that do i imagine would go to range and safety improvement or victims funds. as it should if such a thing were to play out.

crazy people like scary guns. plain as day. they tend not to get terribly sophisticated,

Which is the rational behind banning "scary guns." Unfortunately many gun nuts are incapable of understanding that point.

It appears they don't get terribly sophisticated. They legally and easily buy guns, tons of ammo, and go on a shooting spree... despite being on mindfuk drugs and being labeled as a homicidal maniac by a mental health professional. It is sad that so many gun nuts won't even entertain the idea of at least trying to throw up some road blocks.

i dont want to be limited to hunting and target practice on private property. and self-defense should be legal just about everywhere. i DO think showing proficiency before getting a ccw should be mandatory, in every state. i also think there should be a carry permit thats honored in all 50, but that may go too far.

im not that up to date n it, but i think arizona and florida are that way. nv requires proficiency. as does ca. except nv is shall-issue and allows non-res to obtain permits. ca is discretionary and does not allow non-res permits. i,ve been told alaska requires no permit at all to carry concealed. its expected.